9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this plea raised by the assessee is rejected. The statement given by Shri A. Viswanadham, sales head of M/s. K.K. Enterprises, dated 10/12/2008 has no relevancy, the same cannot be considered. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea raised by the assessee and the same is deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, we reject the same. The same plea has been raised before the CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) considered the same and observed that assessee has not given any explanation for the source of impugned expenditure incurred. It was only argued that the assessee has not indulged and no explanation was given on indiscriminating material noticed. As argued that sales admitted by the assessee was correct. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rejected the alternative plea raised by the assessee. In view of our above finding and also considering the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in respect of alternative plea with regard to profit element, we find no merit in the plea raised by the assessee, the same is dismissed. - ITA Nos. 554 to 557/VIZ/2014 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2018 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON BLE ACCOUNTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his proprietary concern M/s. K.K. Enterprises. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, assessee filed his return of income on 29/10/2008 declaring total income of ₹ 91,71,680/-. There was a search conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short, DRI ) Chennai unit and Hyderabad unit on 10/12/2008 on the business and residential premises of the assessee. During the course of search, imported goods equipments worth ₹ 8.28 crores were seized. Apart from, laptops, hard disc drives, mobile handsets and incriminating documents were also seized. The statements of assessee, his wife, his employees and associates were recorded. One of the overseas supplier Shri Lim Eng Bee, Managing Director of M/s. EB Me Sun Pte Ltd., Singapore was also examined. Statements of Shri Girish Hindelkar, proprietor of Mamta Exim Services (MES), CG International (CGI), the concerns which were utilized for import of equipment / machinery by the assessee were recorded. The DRI authorities after the scrutiny of the documents seized and analysis of GEQD reports and after inquiries with the assessee and his associates on these documents, came to the conclusion that the assessee was involved in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly considered under invoicing and not considered under invoicing sales . Therefore, it is submitted that only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. To support the above proposition, ld. counsel has relied on the assessment order passed in Assessment Year 2008-09 at page No. 19 20, para 7.3 7.3.1, which is the statement given by Shri A. Viswanadham, sales head of M/s. K.K. Enterprises on 10/12/2008 and submitted that only profit may be estimated. 9. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has pointed out from the order of the ld. CIT(A) at page No. 9 10, para No. 10.3, wherein assessee himself admitted that he sold the imported machinery at the rates at which they were recorded in the books of account. Therefore, under invoicing the sales does not arise and the statement given by Shri A. Viswanadham, dated 10/12/2008 has no relevancy. Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the entire case of the department is under invoicing the imported goods and declaring the lesser value than the actual value for goods imported. The invoices submitted for the customs to avoid customs duty on the difference between the invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount. Insofar as this plea is concerned, the DRI authorities after scrutiny of the documents seized and analysis of GEQD reports and after inquiries with the assessee and his associates and relevant documents, came to the conclusion that the assessee was involved in under valuing of imported goods, it has declared lesser value, than the actual value of the goods imported from the invoices submitted for customs to avoid customs duty and the difference between the invoice value and the actual value paid to the overseas suppliers through non-banking channels. The assessee has admitted before the DRI that he had involved in undervaluation of the goods imported and paid an amount of ₹ 150 lakhs towards differential duties. The assessee has not produced any evidence with regard to under invoice the sales neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A) even before us also. There is no merit in the plea raised by the assessee, therefore, it has to be rejected. That apart has pointed out by the ld. Departmental Representative at page Nos. 51 to 53 of the assessment order, a statement given by the assessee before the DRI on 24/03/2010 particularly, Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
